Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the examination and the critique of society and culture, by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities.

As a term, critical theory has two meanings with different origins and histories: the first originated in sociology and the second originated in literary criticism, whereby it is used and applied as an umbrella term that can describe a theory founded upon critique; thus, the theorist Max Horkheimer described a theory as critical in so far as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them."

Update: With the feedback I have received below, and the feedback I've received from my girlfriend, I'm considering changing things around a bit and perhaps go for more simple (heh, right) question of why Community is a postmodern show in the first place. That would allow me to discuss the lack of actual gender issues in the show, the editing/blocking/camera work mentioned by /u/clearguard, the use of genre and the constant references to other works.

We're currently doing a pretty big paper for university, where I study media- and communication. I decided a while back to try to do some form of postmodern reading of the TV-series Community (I swear I got the idea before PBS did their "Is Community a Postmodern Masterpiece?"-video, even if that inspired me further). But that damn show is so hard to nail down.

I currently have the following options that I've considered. All of them come with some form of problem for me.

A look at how Community deals with genre. My initial plan was to look at the paintball-episodes, where they play around with various genres - including a whole bunch of action films (Die Hard, Matrix, etc) in the first season to western and sci-fi (primarily Star Wars) in the second season. My main problem here is I have no idea where to start, or even what kind of reading I should actually do. How can I deconstruct and analyse genre in Community in a fulfilling way? Where the f*ck do I even start? This is what I would prefer to do, but I have no idea how to go about it.

A look at gender in Community. My first idea was to look at the paintball episodes through gender theory, primarily the western episode where one of the female characters are dressed in a more "sexy" cowboy outfit. The problem I'm facing here is that Community - at least as far as I read it - is a pretty asexual show. They do some sex jokes, of course, but in general the tone isn't sexual in any way (especially compared to other modern sitcoms, which tend to rely heavily on sex). In short, I have a hard time finding material to work from - even in episodes which presumably are about gender.

Ethnicity. Again, I run into the same issue as gender. While there are comments about ethnicity, they don't really make a big deal about it. It's simply not an issue.

Community, in my view, is a pretty good example of postmodernism in action. It is reflexive, heavily intertextual, it posists that the viewer is aware of the popular culture references it is constantly making, it tends to deconstruct itself through contradictions (especially the character of Jeff Winger, whose constant speeches tend to contradict themselves while still conveying some form of message the other characters agree with). The character Abed views the world through television, film and other forms of popular culture and often makes comments as the world around him actually is a television show (back to being reflexive).

So I'm utterly stumped. I have no idea where to go from here. Either I drop the show and focus on something else, which will leave me in a state of panic since I've already wasted so much time on this, or I find some form of angle. I also can't analyse the show as a whole, I need to focus on one or two episodes (which is why I chose the paintball episodes, since they have a similar theme).

I hope I make any sense here. I realise that a lot of people here won't have seen the show, but perhaps there are pointers you could give me anyway.

After that you should have at least a few pages of notes and a good understanding of what the show is doing. Then write about any patterns or connections you see. Don't think about whether it a good or bad observation, just start typing whatever comes into your mind. This allows you to find and develop a good argument for your paper.

I'm completely unfamiliar with this show (sorry), but I have a hard time believing that gender and ethnicity are not an issue in an American television show. Is it possible that although the show does not make explicit mentions of gendered politics or ethnicity (or sexual desire for that matter) that it still discusses them without discussing them by displaying a reproduction of normative identitarian discourses within the selves of the characters in the show? Maybe seeing what they are saying about gender, ethnicity, and sex by not talking about it could be a good starting point? Sorry if this is totally useless here, but I hope it at least helps you think of something better than I can come up with. Good luck.

No, that's great stuff. My girlfriend actually had a long talk about the exact same thing right before I saw your reply. :D I shall have to look at the episodes again and take note of what they aren't saying as well as what they are saying.

Though I completely get your point, media as a manifestation/producer of particularly American simulacra makes it a ripe target for critical thought. Examining the spectacle is examining reality. Even thought it isn't my bag there is certainly a place for what some folks have called "low theory" which makes theory accessible to people who might have watched Community but have never read Butler or Derrida.

it seems like using critical theory to analyse anything other than action is a waste of time, a hobby. critical theory was supposed to yield insights into changing how we live, not the content of our passive entertainment. mental masturbation, etc.

Content of our passive entertainment cannot be separated from "how we live." That is like saying we can analyze gendered actions without analyzing the various spectacular dispositif or apparatuses which enforce and produce gendered norms.

We can say that these things, and indeed most things, only exist in their doing, but their doing, or our ability to realize that they are being done, comes from some sort of referent which predates their doing. We cannot simply look at actions, we must also look at those things which produce actions in the sense of an impetus, as well as produce actions in the sense of discursive formations of things to be done.

The spectacle, simulation, simulacra, discourse, all produce the reality which holds power in the production of our selves and our bodies, beyond the actions of our individuals. We cannot just examine how we live if we seek to change how we live, we must also examine why we live how we live, and media/spectacle has an important place in the construction of our reality.

while i'm all for analysis of spectacles and their role and influence in our lives, it seems like the prevalence of this type of analysis is more the result of the mass production of media studies by educational institutions than any effort to make social change.

Critiquing the source of a critique rather than its value as critique is a genetic fallacy. I don't think it is a result of media studies (or at least the worthwhile pieces aren't), there are a lot of pieces that have found import in other disciplines. I would suggest reading/thinking about if you have read The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord and Simulation and Simulacra by Baudrillard to look at how studies of media can expand far beyond media studies.

How our entertainment functions to produce identities/realities/etc can hardly be said to be a reduction to the "content of a TV Guide." Gender analysis of tv content is incredibly important to understanding the referents which are productive of a lot of the doing of gender.

Our mediated spectacle is part of the production of our frameworks of signifying reality, and these discursive frameworks are incredibly important to analyze and critique in order to attempt to transform every day life. Until we stop having television, understanding the participation of television in spectacle will be important. For some people that will mean just examining how gender and ethnicity are dealt with in a popular show. Not everyone can be Guy Debord or Jean Baudrillard.

i see what you're saying and i appreciate your ability to articulate these concepts well. i'll be honest and admit that while debord makes complete sense, i've read 6 of baudrillard's books and got nothing. nothing. yet it sound fantastic when someone explains it to me.

i only bring this up because i think it's relevant to how the media studies business makes me feel: there's a total abandonment of the critique of capital and thus, imho, an escape from the possibility of practical action for an embracement of identity politics, the resolution of which leaves one seeking concrete social transformation...well...empty.

I think some media studies, maybe even most does not discuss Capitalism, some does and that is where there are things worth reading. But just because most of a discipline does not do something well does not mean what is being done by the few is not of great importance. Both debord and baudrillard have pieces which talk about Capital, though these pieces may not explicitly connect (some do) Capital with mediation the implicit connection is there.

An escape from the possibility of practical action for an embracement of identity politics.

To me this is a good thing. There are certainly applications of these theories which seek concrete social transformations, for example Baudrillard's Agony of Power, it just has to be a different sort of transformation.